Saturday, March 05, 2011

Tomorrow (Sunday March 6) a new organization called The United West will be launched at an event in Miami, Florida. The new umbrella organization is an outgrowth of the Florida Security Council, but will have a wider reach, both in the United States and overseas, especially in Europe.

The motto of The United West is: “Uniting Western Civilization against Shariah Islam”.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was invited to speak at tomorrow’s event, and flew in to Miami airport last night from Austria. The reception that awaited her at the airport was a nasty surprise — but maybe it shouldn’t have been, given the current regime of politically correct Multiculturalism, not to mention the depth of penetration of the Department of Homeland Security by agents of the Muslim Brotherhood.

When Elisabeth told me this story earlier today, I suggested that for next time she should invest in a black wig and some Coppertone, and then arrive at Immigration wearing a chador — they’d wave her right through.

Below is Elisabeth’s story:

I have been humiliated.

Yesterday, I entered the United States in Miami and was treated like a potential terrorist. My crime? Meeting with friends in West Palm Beach, staying at a hotel, rather than with those friends, and traveling too much even though I am a housewife and mother. That according to the words of the immigration officer, who simply refused to believe me.

Tired, hungry and exhausted from a long flight, I stood in line to enter the United States. I smiled at the immigration officer, wishing him a good day, and waited for his questions. Behind me, a long line of equally tired travelers, most of them just having flown in from Honduras and Colombia. Mr. Immigration Officer proceeded to ask me the purpose of my trip. I answered truthfully that I was visiting friends in the West Palm Beach area.

“How long have you known these friends?”

Hardly in the position to explain just the way friendships are forged in the Counterjihad, I told him that I had known these friends for quite a while.

“Where did you meet them?”

Well, how does one explain? On the internet, later in person at demonstrations and Counterjihad summits? I chose to say that we met in Brussels and Paris. Mr. Immigration Officer didn’t believe me. I was a suspicious person.

“Where is your husband?”

At home, I told him, taking care of our daughter.

“Why are you traveling alone?”

Because I want to get away once in a while, meet friends and do some shopping.

“But you are a housewife, and you are doing quite a bit of traveling.”

Considering the fact that my passport has stamps from my previous two trips to the US in 2010 and one trip to Israel, I told him that I didn’t consider these trips “a lot of traveling”.

“How do you make your living?”

Well, how does a housewife make a living? By being married and receiving an allowance, and teaching some English in her spare time.

He shook his head ever so slightly, sighed a bit, stamped my passport, scribbled on my customs form and sent me on my way. Little did I know that the worst was yet to come.

I picked up my bright pink suitcase and wanted to hand over my customs declaration, but the officer sent me to Door 8. There was trouble ahead, I realized. But trouble for what? What had I done? What was I suspicious of? I had no produce or meat in my suitcase, only two bottles of Austrian red wine.

After what seemed like an eternity — remember, I hadn’t eaten or slept in nearly eighteen hours — the customs officer proceeded to ask me the same questions that immigration officer had asked. My answers were the same. Next to me another officer opened a man’s suitcase, inspecting his smelly sneakers, seemingly looking for Colombian drugs. What on earth had I done? I dared not ask. I was no longer allowed to touch my own luggage.

Mr. Customs Officer went through my hand luggage first. And he “caught” me right away. The incriminating evidence: my dark blue file sporting a sticker “Freedom YES! Shariah Islamic Law NO!”, courtesy of ACT! for America. His eyes widened and he excitedly opened the file, where he saw my prepared speeches for this weekend’s activities. The title of one of my speeches read “Shut Up, America!” Big trouble. Mr. Customs Officer called his supervisor.

Mr. Supervisor came over and asked me even more questions, more of the same. I told him that I was interested in the subject and had written some papers on the topic. I would be meeting with friends and one of the topics would be the content of the “incriminating” paper. He politely told me he would now read my speech, but before that he asked me, “Are you anti-American?”

What? No, I said, gritting me teeth, trying to smile without throwing up, no, on the very contrary, I am a big admirer of your Constitution and the First Amendment. He moved away a few feet to read my speech, while Mr. Customs Officer continued to violate my privacy by going through my purse. He found books with the suspicious titles “The Grand Jihad” by Andrew McCarthy and “Eine Moschee in Deutschland” (A Mosque in Germany). The minutes ticked on.

“Are you a practicing Christian?” Mr. Supervisor wanted to know.

My rational side asked what it was the custom’s inspector’s business, but reality told me to answer the question. I sported my small silver cross dangling on my chain. Yes, I said, I am. (Actually, I am more Christian, than practicing, but this should not matter in any case.)

“Ma’am, what is THE UNITED WEST?” I told him the truth, that it was to be launched this weekend, an organization to defend Western civilization, Western values, universal human rights, our way of life. He stared at me, told me that he would have to look into this, and left to talk to his colleagues behind a glass wall. I must say that his demeanor was never hostile. He just didn’t know how to categorize me.

After an endless five minutes Mr. Supervisor returned, more friendly than before and said that while he is absolutely on my side, there are radicals on both sides, clearly implying that I was considered a Christian radical.

This was getting really bizarre. Me, a Christian radical? He and Mr. Customs Officer hammered some information into the computer, probably making my future entries into the US almost impossible, and told me that everything would be OK.

Mr. Customs Officer wanted to proceed to the checking of my suitcase, but Mr. Supervisor denied permission. I was OK, at least for this time. “Ma’am, thank you for what you are doing, but may I politely ask you to tone down the rhetoric and not cause any trouble while you are here in the US. Like I said before, there are radicals on both sides.”

Again, I nearly fainted at the bizarreness of this situation. “Yes, sir, of course,” I managed to say. “May I also suggest that if you are convicted after your appeal that you get a visa from your nearest consulate,” he added. We had discussed my trial briefly before he went to consult with his supervisors. I said I would, and was sent on my way.

This episode warrants some hard questions:

What had prompted the authorities to look into me, when they could and should have used the manpower to try and catch travelers with a high Mohammed Coefficient?

How many did the authorities not catch why wasting their time on a free speech advocate?

Why does DHS consider a traveling housewife suspicious?

Are other housewives treated the same way?

Was Mr. Supervisor even allowed by law to ask my religion?

Would he have done the same thing with a hijabbed housewife?

Was he allowed to intimidate me by telling me “to tone down the rhetoric and not cause any problems?”

And, most importantly, where has the First Amendment gone, whose principles were definitely violated by telling me to tone down the rhetoric?

What rhetoric? Didn’t he read the speech closely?

I suppose we now have to realize that standing for freedom means having to tone down the rhetoric.

30
comments:

Don't be humiliated Elizabeth - you need a thick skin, and to keep your chin up no matter what in this game. Let their questions, comments and suspiscions just slide off your back. Think of what politians have to deal with on a daily basis! All the best for your stay in the US Elizabeth. (from a supporter in Australia)

Blogger, Elisabeth can handle herself very well and I am grateful for all her work. The points she makes in this post are of extreme importance. Namely that while our governments waste precious resources and time harassing her and other people who pose no danger to Western countries, they let in those who wish to harm us. Whether it is by intent or stupidity, these governmental policies make us weaker. They create a flock of lambs for the slaughter.

As her account unfolds, this was obviously a question calculated to elicit the correct answer: "No."

"..there are radicals on both sides.”

The fact that Equivalencism ("Christianity is just as potentially bad as Islam") is being blatantly and officially practiced in airport screening for terrorists is outrageous but, alas, numbingly unsurprising.

Furthermore, however, we should know that consistent Equivalencism is not really practiced by the PC MC Equivalencists -- they actually accord Muslims with far more favors, whilst burdening Western Christians with more encumbrances. Except for radical Leftists, who are a small minority in the West, I think this is due to one of the many instances of incoherence in PC MC.

It is appalling, but is the behaviour of the customs officers that surprising? This type of attitude has been established in Canada for some time. If it's not caused by political correctness gone wild, it's due to just plain fear.

On a lighter note. The USA has always had quaint practices at its borders.

Back in the Fifties there was a very irrascible British TV personality called Gilbert Harding. He was visiting Niagara Falls on the Canadian side and decided he would like to look at it from the American side. To do so, he had to fill in a questionnaire which included the question "Do you intend to overthrow the constitution of the United States?" to which he replied"SOLE PURPOSE OF VISIT". He got in!

"And, most importantly, where has the First Amendment gone, whose principles were definitely violated by telling me to tone down the rhetoric?"The American people are being conditioned, by the TSA and others, to accept these restrictions on our freedom of speech. Sadly few resist. May the rest of us resist until the message gets back to Wasington loud and clear that we will not be deprived of our unalienable rights. And may we show the sheeple how to do it.

For one thing, you have now become a statistic demonstrating the “evenhandedness” of the customs officials - in case they are accused of questioning to many Muslims.

In all fairness, it should be pointed out that many progressive or leftists artists and intellectuals - from Charlie Chaplin, to John Lennon, to Brecht, and so many others – have been barred from the United States or deported or harassed into leaving.

The widow and daughter of Salvador Allende, assassinated with the collusion of United States Government under the Nixon administration, for example, were barred from entering United States for about 20 years after the Chilean coup.

The “Mothers of the Disappeared” from El Salvador were barred from entering United States to testify about US sponsored death squad activity there.

This is why I keep my US passport even though I have lived in Europe for ages:

I don't want to be barred from visiting my own family because I am too right-wing, or to left wing, or BOTH – which would be quite a distinction, but also a major inconvenience!

While I applaud E S-W and wish her every success, it does sound as if she's being a bit disingenuous presenting herself as any old housewife. She's a serious political figure, and is holding a bit stick with which she is poking a hornets' nest. I agree that the problem is the hornets, but there are still a lot of people who'd prefer to live with them if she'd just put down the stick. As someone engaged in political action, she needs to understand where they're coming from.

I wouldnt worry about it.Seems to me they are just doing their job.I went to New york in the 90's and the immigration official at Newark was pretty stern.I think America is a great country but it is very authoritarian and militeristic in ways that the U.K is not.C'mon all your police carry guns and when dealing with misdemeanors your police are tyrants compared to our pussycats.

With computers and the internet, maybe Elisabeth could send her speech on ahead via email,next time.

MeThinks a transatlantic flight is the perfect opportunity to sit down and practice, adjust details.

I'm worried that the Americans seem so well informed about the proceedings of her court case. Her possible conviction could land her all kinds of trouble getting into the US - in contrast with real evil persons like Tariq Ramadan, whom Obama seems to want into his empire gladly :(

"Thank you for what you are doing, but may I politely ask you to tone down the rhetoric and not cause any trouble while you are here in the US."

Robert Marchenoir comments:

This is very strange. How does one reconcile the beginning and the end of that sentence ? Obviously they don't match.

Actually, I have seen such a seemingly paradox formulation expressed many times by many in the Anti-Islam Movement, in a related and pertinent context: When I have criticized Robert Spencer (or other asymptotics, some more so (Daniel Pipes) some slightly less so) for moderating and padding his method and approach too much rather than injecting it with more anti-Islamic pizzazz, his supporters invariably come back at me to say just what that customs official said to Elisabeth, in the inverse: "What you, Hesperado, say about Islam is more or less right and good, but we must tone down the rhetoric and package it softly..."

And why must we? Lest we hurt the precious sensibilities of the PC MC and give them a chance to exploit their vilifications of the movement -- either through their control of the mainstream media, and/or through more forceful legal impediments they may be able to exert in one way or another.

If this particular customs official was really on Elisabeth's side, he may well have been giving her "friendly advice" rather than an official warning, so to speak.

All this I am explicating is a separate issue from whether it is strategically beneficial to the movement for us to continue indefinitely to walk gingerly on eggshells, as the Spencerians seem to argue.

"I wonder if Elizabeth, as an alien, had no constitutional rights so the 1st amendment in particular did not apply."

I think that by "holding these truths to be self evident" we, as Americans, must recognize that all humans have them. This does not justify allowing illegal aliens to invade our nation to exercise these self evident rights when they are not willing to exercise them in their own nations. With freedom comes responsibility.

"I'm worried that the Americans seem so well informed about the proceedings of her court case."

Don't be worried. Be encouraged. This is exactly the type of case that will bring Americans to their senses. It is easy to dismiss the occasional honor killing as an aberration. Mrs. S-W's case hits far closer to home for most Americans, ideologically, and is exactly what we need to hear. It is very difficult for the press to "spin" this story in any other way than that Islam must be examined.

I can only wish for 100 times more coverage than she has gotten so far.

Call Me Mom: I think that by "holding these truths to be self evident" we, as Americans, must recognize that all humans have them.

That may be a huge mistake. Human rights should not be extended to those who intend to abolish them. As one anonymous commenter at another site noted:

If Islam puts itself before the principles of the United States, then we can't use those principles to defend it.

We have already done ourselves tremendous harm by trusting Muslims to demonstrate the same respect for us that we show to them. It is now time to realize that this goes well beyond matters of trust and extends to respect for every known human right and concept of fairness or decency.

Islam awards itself the ultimate unfair advantage by sanctioning Muslim taqiyya. Precisely which Muslim are you going to trust when that person seeks to assure you of their total respect for your own human rights?

Are you ready to risk your life betting that Muslims will recognize your right to equal protection under the law when Shari'a promises an Infidel like yourself absolutely no such thing?

Zenster, You bring up a good point, however, all rights, even self evident ones, have natural limits. The limit recognized by American law is that your right ends where it touches your neighbor.

Islam and it's followers have the right to free speech and freedom of religion. They do not have the right to subvert, undermine, overthrow or attempt to replace the Constitution with sharia, because doing so touches me.

The problem in America, is not that we have these rights, rather it is that we have not respected their natural limits, nor required our neighbors to do so, for too long. It has become politically correct to allow our friends and neighbors and even strangers to trample our rights for the sake of appearing to be "nice" or more accurately, Christian.

The idea that Christians or those wishing to appear Christian must surrender their God given and Constitutionally affirmed rights out of some misguided notion that all Christians are to be doormats is ridiculous.

We might do well to remember that Jesus told His disciples to arm themselves before He left them.

Our rights have natural limitations. We need to remember that and act accordingly.

I would make a comparison with the rather dubious attempts to allow Guantanamo terrorist detainees any privilege of standing trial in American civilian courts.

Just by extending certain rights to these profoundly anti-American individuals, we have opened the door for huge abuses of due process and our legal system in general.

This is why I suggest that certain elements should not even have baseline human rights extended to them. Doing that alone opens the door for lawfare, backdoor funding and claims of protected speech or activity that really should not even be permitted to begin with.

Soon enough we will probably find out that allowing Muslims to immigrate here in the first place will fall into that same category of mistake

I probably shouldn't attempt to post this on so little sleep, but here goes. These rights are self evident. That means that all people have them, whether or not we want them to. They were provided by our Creator. That means that we do not have the authority to deny them.

I will grant you that we have neglected our teaching and our duty to our children to see that they understand these things, as well as when and how to judge whether or not someone else's exercise of their God given, self evident rights have encroached on our own, much less how to address such encroachment.

The solution lies not in denying the rights of others, but rather, in relearning how to assert our own. If we cannot do that, then all is lost whether to the followers of Islam or Communism or some other threat.

This nation, this republic, depends on the shared vision, personal responsibility and self control of it's people to maintain itself. It more than depends on it, it demands those things of us as a duty of citizenship.If we cannot live up to that duty, then not all the laws in the world can maintain the nation for us.

Call Me Mom: The solution lies not in denying the rights of others, but rather, in relearning how to assert our own.

Here, we are largely in agreement. Better recognition and demand for the enforcement of our own rights would have seen our borders sealed against Muslim immigrants and a much larger portion of illegal aliens as well.

It is far more desirable that we preclude any necessity of depriving those already on our soil of their ostensible rights than it is to parse out the rule of law so that it may be applied selectively.

All things considered, that horse is out of the barn and we are now faced with the onerous task of making this nation's laws work for genuine Americans.

I appreciate you having the determination to make your point clear but do you also see how we are well past any preliminary interpretation with respect to individual rights? Instead, we are now entering the less familiar legal terrain of sorting through exactly how valid any claims of residency are among those who have entered this country under false pretenses or with seditious intent.

To be sure this is an uncomfortable process but it is one that has been thrust upon us by decades of incompetent and corrupt political leadership whose careerist mentality is at direct odds with the electorate's weal.

Why the dramatization? Tired, hungry and exhausted from a long flight and remember, I hadn’t eaten or slept in nearly eighteen hours have no place here; the experience is bad enough without trying to play the 'pity'-factor, without trying to make it worse than it was. Since when do airlines not serve meals during flights?

And, of course, it's highly irrelevant. Does ESW mean to imply that airport security personnel should not question suspected criminals because they've just had a long voyage? Ridiculous!

The only problem here is that a supporter of the Constition, a supporter of the values on which America was built, is supected of being an enemy of America. Which, of course, given the current interpretation of what America supposedly should stand for, might be not too far from the truth, from a government perspective...

R. Hartman,why NOT dramatize? It is the truth, by the way. I WAS extremely tired and I had indeed not eaten. If you must know, the food on the plane was not to my liking. Ridiculous that you should question this.

Hartman, do you mean to imply that I am a criminal for defending the Constitution, especially the First Amendment?

I do have to comment on this statement: "do you also see how we are well past any preliminary interpretation with respect to individual rights? Instead, we are now entering the less familiar legal terrain of sorting through exactly how valid any claims of residency are among those who have entered this country under false pretenses or with seditious intent"

How can we possibly be "past any preliminary interpretation with respect to individual rights"?

Are we ever past that? Is there some point at which individual rights become subject to the needs of the group of which I am not aware? (Beyond the point of their natural limits, that is.)

Sedition, illegal immigration and etc., these are already illegal. The enforcement of our laws is no less an assertion of our rights and an exercise of their limits than refusing to be bullied is on an individual level.

The point is that the current laws are not being enforced. (We are not asserting our rights on the law enforcement level, if you will.) This is exactly what needs to happen and soon.

Call Me Mom: Are we ever past that [preliminary interpretation with respect to individual rights]?

Again, an outstanding question.

This beggars a close examination of what is probable versus possible with respect to the governance on offer in modern America.

No one but the most rabid Tea Party candidates give even a remote hope of Constitutional rights being delivered in their unadorned form.

Left, Right and Center American politics all proffer alternative forms of Constitutional interpretation, at best.

How then is it that we might have much hope of obtaining unobstructed access to what should otherwise be our most basic Constitutional rights?

It is for this reason that I am forced to begin parsing out our current situation regardless of how repugnant and contrary to strict Constitutional logic it might be.

You continue to be spot on about how our collective fallback should be our unalienable rights. How then are we supposed to overcome generations of politics almost exclusively dedicated to alienating us from those exact rights?

Your argument is one that closely parallels that of how Freedon of Speech has been subverted by so-called "Hate Speech" crimes. Proper enforcement of regular laws forbidding threats of violence should have served that exact same purpose. It was only because of nod-and-wink attitudes by regular law enforcement about rape ("boys will be boys" horseradish) and gay-bashing (institutionalized homophobia), that "Hate Speech" legislation gained any traction.

Similarly, our Constitutional rights have been subverted by careerist PC MC politicians who have arrogated to themselves the right to determine America's future course and societal composition, regardless of the public will.

In a like manner few, if any, alternatives exist regarding how we will successfully redirect attention towards asserting, once more, our right to an unimpeded quest after life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, our rights are being infringed upon. Yes, the Constitution guarantees otherwise. Yes, the most efficient course of action is to reaffirm those Constitutional rights.

Now, how to reconcile that with a generations-old and thoroughly ossified legal superstructure more accustomed to mincing such concepts finely enough whereby they still can be eaten decades later?

I wholeheartedly support a return to strict Constitutional interpretation. However, the time line of swaying America's electorate to impose such a mandamus upon our political leadership most likely exceeds by an order of magnitude the ease with which we might hope to put stopgap curative legislation in place.

Is strict Constitutional interpretation more desirable? Without a doubt. Is stopgap curative legislation ten times more likely to be enacted within the prevailing political atmosphere?